Solar cycle #24

[tusenfem]

Who knows? It could be a huge volcano eruption (Yellowstone may finally explode) it could be a big comet hitting the Earth, both leading to the supposted "nuclear winter" or the Sun may remain in minimum, wander into a Maunder-like minimum and possibly the Earth cools down.

Tusenfem, could you just for a moment forget about plasma physics and try looking at the bigger picture, please? What about the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit? What say ye?

EricFD, I don't know what you want but in the text that I wrote was not one word of plasma physics, but if you want some other process, how about a change in the circulation pattern of the oceans, e.g. the warm gulf stream going up to Scandinavia. That is something that could trigger a cooling down and the start of an ice age.

What about the excentricity of the Earth's orbit, that has been there for millions of years, do you expect a change in the excentricity? That would truly call for an astronomical event.

I'd be willing to bet that our resident geologist knows the answer to my question. It's really not that hard of a question. It's happened before on this planet. This is your home planet, and you don't even know most of its history? Come on! It's not like I am speaking with stupid and ignorant people here.

Well, maybe you should put the question in Q&A then, you might get the answer you like or are looking for.

It's your homeplanet too, why don't you know ?

And the question might be more difficult than you realise.

[pghnative]

As a lurker to most threads with heavy duty astonomy, I confess that I don't grasp either William's or tusenfem's points completely.

Some questions I'm curious about:

1) Is it true that the solar minimum is already lasting longer than expected?

2) how long would a solar minimum need to last for this to be significant (Q more for tusenfem)

3) how many sunspots (over next six months, for instance) of "normal strength" would it take for William to retract his assertions. (Q obviously for William)

[CJSF]

Stop the arrogant condescending, Eric. If you have something to say, say it.

CJSF

[lomiller1]

2) how long would a solar minimum need to last for this to be significant (Q more for tusenfem)

At the solar minimum the Suns energy output is about 0.1% below normal. IIRC at those levels it would take 2-3 decades to overcome the thermal inertia of the Earth’s oceans. Over shorter periods there would be a change in net energy stored in the atmosphere/oceans but it would be below noise levels and difficult to measure.

[pghnative]

At the solar minimum the Suns energy output is about 0.1% below normal. IIRC at those levels it would take 2-3 decades to overcome the thermal inertia of the Earth’s oceans. Over shorter periods there would be a change in net energy stored in the atmosphere/oceans but it would be below noise levels and difficult to measure.

Sorry, I didn't mean "significant" in the climate change sense --- I meant "signficant" such that mainstream solar scientists would say "hey, that's not expected"

[lomiller1]

Sorry, I didn't mean "significant" in the climate change sense --- I meant "signficant" such that mainstream solar scientists would say "hey, that's not expected"

I could be wrong but I don’t think the underlying physical cause of solar cycles is well enough understood for anything to be truly unexpected. Rather any change would qualify as interesting in that it provides new information that could help them come to a better understanding.

[EricFD]

I could be wrong but I don’t think the underlying physical cause of solar cycles is well enough understood for anything to be truly unexpected. Rather any change would qualify as interesting in that it provides new information that could help them come to a better understanding.

You are not wrong, lomiller1! This is the first intelligent statement that I have yet to read in this thread. It is not well understood! In fact, it is very poorly understood! This is one of the three variables that must be considered in order to answer my question. Excellent! Carry on............

Eric

[lomiller1]

You are not wrong, lomiller1! This is the first intelligent statement that I have yet to read in this thread. It is not well understood! In fact, it is very poorly understood! This is one of the three variables that must be considered in order to answer my question.

How so? As I mentioned above the changes in energy output related to solar cycles is tiny, and is highly unlikely to be a major factor in an event like snowball earth. The Sun is getting warmer and is about 25% warmer then it was when the earth formed, but that is a much longer slower process.


The only conceivable cause for a snowball earth today would be if for some reason long lived greenhouse gasses disappeared or dropped significantly. If this happened water vapor would likely disappear as well depending of how far south sea ice went. With no greenhouse gasses the earth would be about 33 deg cooler even with its current albeado. This could conceivably trigger a snowball earth period.

[EricFD]

How so? As I mentioned above the changes in energy output related to solar cycles is tiny, and is highly unlikely to be a major factor in an event like snowball earth. The Sun is getting warmer and is about 25% warmer then it was when the earth formed, but that is a much longer slower process.


The only conceivable cause for a snowball earth today would be if for some reason long lived greenhouse gasses disappeared or dropped significantly. If this happened water vapor would likely disappear as well depending of how far south sea ice went. With no greenhouse gasses the earth would be about 33 deg cooler even with its current albeado. This could conceivably trigger a snowball earth period.

In what direction is our continent moving as a result of plate tectonics? Which continental mass will it, over millions of years, again come into contact with, thus forming another super-continent like Pangaea and Rodinia? And what will happen to the thermo-dynamics of the oceans of this world, which are a homeostatic system that keeps are present day Earth in thermal equilibrium as it does now?

You're just simply not thinking. None of you!

Eric

[EricFD]

I give up!

[EricFD]

It was a very simple question which I asked you and not a single one of you can answer it. Why is that?

Eric

[lomiller1]

It was a very simple question which I asked you and not a single one of you can answer it. Why is that?

Because your question amounts to “what am I thinking?” which may be easy for you to answer, for the rest of us it involves trying to read your mind or infer from your vague statements.

Re: plate tectonics, while the position of the continents certainly plays a role in very long term climate it seems unlikely to be able to cause a snowball earth event. Indeed I’m not even sure where continents would be positioned for optimal chances of a snowball earth. If the continents are too far north and the glaciers can’t extend far enough south, if the continents are further south there is no land near the poles for glaciers to gain traction.

[antoniseb]

It was a very simple question which I asked you and not a single one of you can answer it. Why is that?

For my part it is from not reading the question until just now. The answer of course has nothing to do with this Solar Cycle... come to think of it neither did the question. Please be a good citizen and ask this sort of thing in separate Q&A thread.

[EricFD]

Because your question amounts to “what am I thinking?” which may be easy for you to answer, for the rest of us it involves trying to read your mind or infer from your vague statements.

Re: plate tectonics, while the position of the continents certainly plays a role in very long term climate it seems unlikely to be able to cause a snowball earth event. Indeed I’m not even sure where continents would be positioned for optimal chances of a snowball earth. If the continents are too far north and the glaciers can’t extend far enough south, if the continents are further south there is no land near the poles for glaciers to gain traction.

Lomiller1, like I said, I give up on this one. Evidently, it is obvious to me, but not to any of you.

Besides, my question has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely cycle 24 of our sun and what's happening with our sun, which no one knows, including me.

Pray that it is not the worst case scenario, that being if a Q-ball particle really has entered into our sun and our sun is actually dying and we along with it. But, I very much doubt that that is what is happening here.

Have a nice day!

Eric

[BrentArsement]

EricFD, you asked "What are we afraid of?". Am I understanding that you mite, maybe, possibly think the Sun is near death and us with it? Oh boy, i'll tell my kids. I personally don't care what occurs in the next 40 years because none of us can control it. I can strive to have sustainable food, water, security, family, and community......nothing else. Whatever happens will be difficult for all on planet Earth whether its manmade or naturally occuring. But not the end, my brother.

Perhaps I am over reading your intent, but sounds like you think the Sun is done. Sorry bro, I wouldn't bet on that with my daughter's monopoly money.

Tusenfem, you are in a better position than I. You are seeing the data and watching with greater detail. Being a front porch patron, I merely like discussing the possibilities and probabilities, nothing more nothing less. My simple explanations are sometimes oversimplified, but I mean no harm. I enjoy the thoughts on this subject and you gents provoke thought. Thank you.

Now I feel alot better and think I'll go pick some persimmons that have rippened with the help of the Sun. Cheers.

[Jens]

1) Is it true that the solar minimum is already lasting longer than expected?

It seems that your good questions somehow got lost in some other issues. I'm no expert, but I can help a bit.

On the first question, yes, it is true. The expectations were not that it would last this long. It was expected that the sun would start becoming active again more than a year ago (maybe in the summer of 2008?). So it is unusual at least in the context of what has happened in the last century or so. Though the minimum in 1912 and 1913 was also quite deep.

2) how long would a solar minimum need to last for this to be significant (Q more for tusenfem)

Probably the answer to (1) answers that. It already is significant. But as lomiller1 correctly stated, there is a lot that is not well understood, so it's not so much that the sun is misbehaving as that there are gaps in our understanding of how it behaves.

3) how many sunspots (over next six months, for instance) of "normal strength" would it take for William to retract his assertions. (Q obviously for William)

That, I'm afraid, William will have to answer! Though I'm not certain he's really making any strong assertions other than that something is unusual, which everybody more or less recognizes. I think that Tusenfem is getting after him not for the assertion that this cycle is unusual, but for incorrect understanding of physical processes. And it's normal: Tusenfem is a physicist.

[William]

As we all live on the planet earth and solar variations could have a significant affect to our biosphere. The recent abrupt change to the sun desires some investigation, some polite discussion.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsyst...ray_surge.html

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...e_graph_HI.jpg

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech.

"We're experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, "so it is no surprise that cosmic rays are at record levels for the Space Age."

Mewaldt lists three aspects of the current solar minimum that are combining to create the perfect storm:

1.The sun's magnetic field is weak. "There has been a sharp decline in the sun's interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) down to only 4 nanoTesla (nT) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT," he says. "This record-low IMF undoubtedly contributes to the record-high cosmic ray fluxes."

2. The solar wind is flagging. "Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft show that solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low," he continues, "so the magnetic bubble that protects the solar system is not being inflated as much as usual." A smaller bubble gives cosmic rays a shorter-shot into the solar system. Once a cosmic ray enters the solar system, it must "swim upstream" against the solar wind. Solar wind speeds have dropped to very low levels in 2008 and 2009, making it easier than usual for a cosmic ray to proceed.

3. The current sheet is flattening. Imagine the sun wearing a ballerina's skirt as wide as the entire solar system with an electrical current flowing along the wavy folds. That is the "heliospheric current sheet," a vast transition zone where the polarity of the sun's magnetic field changes from plus (north) to minus (south). The current sheet is important because cosmic rays tend to be guided by its folds. Lately, the current sheet has been flattening itself out, allowing cosmic rays more direct access to the inner solar system.

"If the flattening continues as it has in previous solar minima, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs," predicts Mewaldt.

Solar wind bursts were hiding the consequences of very high GCR. See above "electroscavenging". The solar wind bursts are starting to abate. What will be the consequences of the highest GCR levels in a century?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JA014342.shtml

If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

[Atraveller]

1) Is it true that the solar minimum is already lasting longer than expected?

Typical minimum in the sunspot cycle has 485 Spotless days. This minimum has had 750 so far.

Spaceweather reports on solar activity: Space Weather

[tusenfem]

Some questions I'm curious about:

1) Is it true that the solar minimum is already lasting longer than expected?

2) how long would a solar minimum need to last for this to be significant (Q more for tusenfem)

3) how many sunspots (over next six months, for instance) of "normal strength" would it take for William to retract his assertions. (Q obviously for William)

I was sleeping when all this happened. Ain't it fun, different time zones.

1. The solar cycle is approximately 11 years (10.6 if you calculate it correctly over long term) however it can be as short as 9 years or as long as 13 years. This solar minimum is pressing the boundaries it should already have ended, but apparently the sunspot cycle is not starting up "as it should."
2. The long minimum that we are having now is already significant, but here it depends what you mean with significant (significant for what). It clearly shows that we have no really good model for the solar cycle. With computer programs we cannot get even close to real physical numbers for the processes happening. Lots of solar physicist are keeping a close eye at our sun.
3. I am not sure whether William should retract his assertions (well that again depends on which ones you mean). The main question at the beginning was when cycle 24 will start.

[tusenfem]

Solar wind bursts were hiding the consequences of very high GCR. See above "electroscavenging". The solar wind bursts are starting to abate. What will be the consequences of the highest GCR levels in a century?

I have no idea what this bolded sentence is supposed to mean.
Electroscavenging does not appear anywhere "above," nor on the NASA page that was linked to.

You are really starting to "make this up at the go."

And you forgot to quote the last part that NASA and Mewaldt said:

Earth is in no great peril from the extra cosmic rays. The planet's atmosphere and magnetic field combine to form a formidable shield against space radiation, protecting humans on the surface. Indeed, we've weathered storms much worse than this. Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% higher than they are now. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium.

"The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Mewaldt. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

[William]

I have no idea what this bolded sentence is supposed to mean.
Electroscavenging does not appear anywhere "above," nor on the NASA page that was linked to.

I have started a separate thread in science to discuss solar magnetic cycle changes and changes on the planet earth that appear to correlate with past deep solar magnetic minimums. If anyone wants to discuss electrocavenging please ask me a question in the new thread in science. Tinsley and Yu's paper in this link provides a good overview of the theory.

http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...ml#post1152143

It is pertinent to the solar minimum discussions that there are significant cyclic changes on the earth that correlate with past deep solar magnetic cycle minimums.

As we are having a deep solar magnetic minimum now it suggested that we should first look at the earth observations in question, think, discuss, think some more, before drawing a line in the sand concerning our personnel scientific viewpoint.

[BrentArsement]

solar magnetic cycle changes and changes on the planet earth

Yummy. Thank you William.

Tusenfem, sleeping is one of my favorite activities. I used to be thankful of cat naps, but a good, long sleep is now my favorite.

I hope you are well. I must confess that I am jealous of you Tusenfem. Oh to be a young student again and choose to pursue a great love. I thought my love was being a warrior, but I would much, greatly, beggingly prefer peaceful farming and bartering.

I once again want to apologize for any problem or negatively energized wording towards any of you in this thread.

Looking forward and cheers to all.

[pghnative]

I was sleeping when all this happened. Ain't it fun, different time zones.

Thanks, tusenfem, and others who answered. Too bad William didn't as well.

The long minimum that we are having now is already significant, but here it depends what you mean with significant (significant for what).

yeah, that's the trouble with adjectives. Hard to describe exactly what I mean.

Maybe another way to ask is: how unique would a 1 yr delay in starting the next solar cycle? a 5yr delay? a 20 yr delay?

(From previous replies, it seems that we currently are similar to 1911-13, so maybe we're currently in a once-per-century type of event.)

[Jens]

A record of sorts: today, the sun registered 242 spotless days in the year, making it the fourth blankest year in the last century, after 1913 (311 days), 2008 (268 days), and 1912 (254 days). I think it's unlikely that this year will make it into second place, but surpassing 1912 certainly seems possible.

[ThePizzaguy]

It seems that your good questions somehow got lost in some other issues. I'm no expert, but I can help a bit.

On the first question, yes, it is true. The expectations were not that it would last this long. It was expected that the sun would start becoming active again more than a year ago (maybe in the summer of 2008?). So it is unusual at least in the context of what has happened in the last century or so. Though the minimum in 1912 and 1913 was also quite deep.



Probably the answer to (1) answers that. It already is significant. But as lomiller1 correctly stated, there is a lot that is not well understood, so it's not so much that the sun is misbehaving as that there are gaps in our understanding of how it behaves.



That, I'm afraid, William will have to answer! Though I'm not certain he's really making any strong assertions other than that something is unusual, which everybody more or less recognizes. I think that Tusenfem is getting after him not for the assertion that this cycle is unusual, but for incorrect understanding of physical processes. And it's normal: Tusenfem is a physicist.

I just saw the Movie 2012. It was awful. No spoilers here. Just awful.

Anyway, I came home and thought I would take a look into Cycle 23/24. It seems that it started in January 2008. However, research form experts in data management, expect when the 1 Sunspot of cycle 24 shows up, the cycle 24 starts 12-24 months later, with the low minimum of cycle 23 July 2009.

The effects

[orionjim]

What happened??? Yesterday nothing, today a whole line of sunspots!

[William]

What happened??? Yesterday nothing, today a whole line of sunspots!

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mbral_data.png

Hello orionjim,

Bill Livingston has taken a magnetic field strength reading from the seventeen most recently produced sunspots. The magnetic field strength of the newly produced sunspots continues to linearly decrease as compared previously produced sunspots.

Due to the reduction in magnetic field strength of the new sunspots that are being produced, they are more difficult to see using the visable spectrum. The magnetic field of the sunspot makes it cooler than the surrounding solar photosphere so it is hence dark as compared to the solar photosphere.

Livingston and Penn said that a magnetic field strength of 1500 Gauss (based on theoretical models of the solar sunspot mechanism) is require for the solar sunspot mechanism to function. I have read elsewhere that the minimum magnetic field level for the solar sunspot mechanism to function is around 2000 Gauss, which it appears the sun will reach sometime in late 2010 or early 2011.

The sun appears still to be in anomolous state. It is not clear what will happen next or what will be the final state.

[mantiss]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mbral_data.png

The sun appears still to be in anomolous state. It is not clear what will happen next or what will be the final state.

I wouldn't say it's in an anomalous state when the reference numbers only span ~50 years as far as magnetic field measurements are concerned. All we can say right now is that it doesn't fit the predictions made a few years back.

[Jens]

Unless a sunspot appears in the next 20 hours or so, the sun's spotless record this year will match the number of last year, and it will move into second place as the most spotless year in the past century (as well as top spot in the last 50 years).

On the surface, this is quite an unusual thing, but it's not really because we know that historically there have been long periods with few sunspots. So this may become a golden opportunity to understand more about the sun's activity. People who like to look at sunspots might be disappointed, but I think the chance to witness this kind of event with modern observational equipment is a much more exciting prospect.

[beethovenspiano]

Unless a sunspot appears in the next 20 hours or so, the sun's spotless record this year will match the number of last year, and it will move into second place as the most spotless year in the past century (as well as top spot in the last 50 years).

HAHAH I wouldn't be surprised if one appeared, a couple of months ago we were about ONE day away from breaking the record for continuous absence of sunspots for this cycle - then on the last day before the record fell, the tiniest spot appeared, resetting the count lol